We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes—something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.

Posted on: 2009/12/11 17:04

_________________
Jay P

Walk up the river to the cedar trees, follow the sun and catch a nice cool breeze

You're own logic fails itself. And here's where. The forests that we have, like the deer herd, are not the original forests. The situation has changed due to our past neglect.

Throughout the northern tier, since most of the area was logged completely, most of the trees are of the same general age. A diversity of species as well as ages are obviously the healthy, and original situation. Even if we left it go, it wouldn't be healthy for hundreds of years into the future. Small clearcuts and selective logging help correct this situation by adding diversity to the age of the trees. They are good for the forest and just about every woodland animal found within, provided it is allowed to grow back of course.

IMO, logging is a great story of how we learn from past mistakes. We did it wrong when we nearly totally logged off the forests of PA, and totally destroyed the habitat as a result. Now its being done fairly well and improving a bad situation.

Logging needs to be closely regulated, and for the most part, it is. I have a few gripes but they're minor. But ironically, because of past logging abuses, opposing logging in all forms is dangerous and damaging to the ecosystem.

"A country's fauna is a sacred trust, and I appeal to you not to betray that trust...If we do not bestir ourselves now it will be to our discredit that the fauna of our province was exterminated in our generation, and under our very eyes, while we looked on and never raised a finger to prevent it." - Jim Corbett

Small clearings are also created by trees reaching maturity and falling. Or beaver dams flooding a wooded area and then receding. The only thing is that neither of those allow someone to make a profit, and take place over a longer period of time.

The basic ecosystem here has changed. Changed from a predominantly evergreen forest to a mixed deciduous forest ecosystem. That change does not mean it cannot exist without human intervention, it just means that it has changed. The "original" ecosystem all over the world was bare rock, and someone the planet filled with life without human monitoring! Its crazy, I know.

Let me try to work through this. You seem to be arguing that forest ecosystems that haven't been in place almost in perpetuity cannot live by themselves (because you don't have the stratification of differently aged trees). Then how can ANY system ever start without human monitoring? The concept of ecological succession, starting from bare rock, doesn't include human "management", and it works just fine. In many places in PA our current forests started, more or less, from bare ground succession.

Lets be honest here. Logging and clearcutting can improve the numbers of certain species, but that implies that species who use that sort of ecosystem are better than those that fill niches in unbroken woodlots. So yes, if you measure a healthy ecosystem by how many deer you have, clearcutting can be great.I still maintain that through blow downs, mature trees dying, and especially fire, open areas occur naturally, but no one gets to line their pockets off of that.

Of course it will eventually get back to where it was, but it'll take an awfully long time, we're talking maybe 1000 years here. And of course it would continue to exist, it just wouldn't be as strong. If we didn't hunt, deer would continue to exist as well, in much greater numbers actually. Great for the deer, sucks for the trees and the other woodland inhabitants, as well as people.

I'm saying that, in the current situation, some well regulated logging can improve the ecosystem for almost every single inhabitant of the ecosystem, and by any measure you can come up with. We're not just talking about deer, but squirrels, chipmunks, mice, insect life, bird life (including the tweety variety as well as birds of prey and turkey). I honestly can't think of a single forest inhabitant that isn't helped by some limited logging. Perhaps fish, though for the most part the logging stays away from the stream bottoms these days. Logging, when done carefully, is simply good for the biological productivity of our forests.

I do understand the idealist "hands off" approach. We may have screwed the pooch, but let nature fix things from here. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But if you're going to take that view, I think you have to be consistent between flora and fauna.

Logging is the quicker, profitable way for what would happen naturally to occur. You'll never convince me that its "better" for anyone but those with a stake in logging companies. I'm ok with it taking an awfully long time. I don't need to be around to see the result. The benfits of logging occur naturally, so other than the time factor, what benefit is there, other than money? Also, when a tree matures and falls, no roads need to be built back to the tree, and no taxpayer dollars need to be spent to cause that tree to fall. Same with a beaver pond that floods, then drains when the dam breaks.

I understand that not all woodlands can, or should, be preserved, but don't try and tell me that logging is better for the health of the ecosystem than what nature will do on it's own. I like to do woodworking, and I know that wood comes from a tree thats been cut down somewhere. I know that to keep any natural areas on a decent scale we need to conserve, not preserve, them but I won't pretend that logging, or drilling, is somehow environmentally preferable to letting it be.

edit: Some other thoughts:It may seem like I'm splitting hairs here. If logging accomplishes the same thing letting nature will, and it provides a profit, then wheres the downside? The downside is that if we agree that logging is BETTER for our forests than preservation, what reason would there be not to log every inch of forest left in PA, every inch of forest left in the Eastern United States? The entire concept of preservation hinges on that idea that an ecosystem NOT used for logging or drilling is a better ecosystem than the one being used, even if the benefit isn't for many hundreds of years.

The downside is that if we agree that logging is BETTER for our forests than preservation, what reason would there be not to log every inch of forest left in PA, every inch of forest left in the Eastern United States?

Because logging IN ALL FORMS is not better for our forests, it is only better when done in moderation, in certain areas, and when well regulated. That means there needs to be rules regarding roadbuilding and maintenance, location of logging (such as not near streams and such), species and age of trees being harvested, maximum area, etc. Believe it or not, these regulations exist, and I'm not against strengthening them. Overall, the logging companies (and regulators) do a pretty good job these days on public lands, which obviously was not always the case. There is still abuse on private lands.

Quote:

don't try and tell me that logging is better for the health of the ecosystem than what nature will do on it's own.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. Long term (>1000 years) its a wash either way, but short term the well regulated logging route is clearly superior for the health of the ecosystem.

Quote:

The entire concept of preservation hinges on that idea that an ecosystem NOT used for logging or drilling is a better ecosystem than the one being used

I couldn't disagree more. 1st, I don't think anyone could say drilling is good for the local environment. We can discuss the degree of "badness", and whether its better than the alternatives, but noone would say there is an actual benefit to the local ecosystem from the act of drilling. 2nd, the concept of preservation, for me, means ensuring that the quality of the land and water is preserved to ensure and promote recreational pursuits, whether they be hunting, fishing, hiking, bird watching, camping, geocaching, the Sunday Drive, etc. It is the public's land, paid for by the public for the recreational, physical, and spiritual benefit of the public. Those in power must always consider the original purpose of the land first and foremost. If those pursuits can be maintained, or even enhanced, then the land has been preserved even if it is being "used" for other purposes. It's a delicate balance for sure, and I believe there is room for debate on how to handle that balance. But I wholeheartedly reject the two extremes, the all or none doctrine that you seem to be stuck on.

I’m glad this post opened discussion. Here is a quote from Frances Cairndross’s book Costing the Earth: The Challenge for Governments, the Opportunities for Business (1992)"The challenge for government and for environmentalists is to spot ways of creating the right incentives so that industry finds it profitable to be clean and unprofitable to be dirty."

Paraphrases of things said by Aldo Leopold: don't have my copy of Sand County Almanac in my back pocket as per ususal.

We abuse the land because we see it as a commodity that belongs to us; when we become part of the community that includes the land in its membership, we may then begin to use it as it ought to tbe used.

But,

Just as we will never achieve justice and liberty for all people, we will never achieve harmony with the land; however, it is important that we try.

"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."